Argumentative Essay: QuickStudy Reference Guide to Planning, Researching, and Writing

6 Pages·2·7.518 MB·English

WORLD’S #1 ACADEMIC OUTLINE
AArrgguummeennttaattiivvee EEssssaayy
Essential guide to planning, researching, and writing
UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENT & THE WRITING PROCESS
◊ Acknowledge any facts that seems to contradict your ● Is the claim susceptible of proof? If so,
What Is an Argumentative Essay?
conclusion and explain how they fit in. – What sort of evidence could support the claim?
Product of an investigation: ◊ Demonstrate how the evidence (properly understood) – What sort of evidence (if any) has been omitted, and
● Prior to writing, the investigator collects, generates, and leads to the conclusion.
why?
evaluates evidence. Purpose: Attempts to convince an audience to:
Most arguments contain debatable statements (e.g., argu-
● The investigator comes to a tentative conclusion based ● Agree with facts.
ments, assertions, propositions, and premises). Other people
on the evidence. ● Share values.
● An argumentative essay thus begins at the end of the ● Accept arguments and conclusions. may or may not agree with these statements.
process, after the investigation and evaluation are com- ● Undermine prejudices and preconceptions. EX: Damage to the ozone layer is probably irreversible.
plete. The writer: ● Adopt a way of thinking.
Most arguments contain non-debatable statements (also
– States his or her position. Arguments are generally built around a specific statement
known as facts). These are statements that no reasonable
– Marshals the evidence collected. Here it is proper to: (a claim or thesis). When writing or evaluating such claims,
person would challenge.
◊ Identify and explain common misunderstandings, be sure to ask yourself:
particularly those readers are likely to hold. ● Is the claim debatable within the field of study? EX: Inflation is not good for the economy.
– Advantages and disadvantages of deductive logic: – Conditional statements: Rules of inference and their
Logic in Argument
◊ Deductive arguments involve a high degree of cer- fallacies
● Logic is a way of reasoning devised to establish what can tainty; valid deductive arguments are absolutely true. ◊ Conditional statements are known as “if-then”
or cannot be proved true. ◊ The main disadvantage of a deductive argument is clauses (if P, then Q).
● Logic offers basic rules for coming to correct conclusions its limited, circular nature: no new information is
EX: If you are in New Delhi (P), then you are in India (Q).
in an argument. acquired.
● Logic offers correctives to faulty thinking. ● Inductive logic (bottom-up logic) – Affirming the “if” clause (affirming the antecedent
● Classical logic: The three basic laws of reason – Particular to general: Inductive arguments proceed or “modus ponens”)
– Law of Identity (LI): All things possess their own from the particular to the general. Because human ex- ◊ As long as the conditional is true, the “then” clause is
unique features. This is true of both universal and perience is limited, however, even the best inductive always true when the “if” clause is (P, therefore, Q).
individual objects and is expressed mathematically as arguments are only probable. EX: I am in New Delhi (P); therefore, I must be in India (Q).
A = A. Each object is thus identical to itself. – Deductive arguments are either valid or invalid; there
– Fallacy of affirming the consequent
– Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC): Contradictory is no middle ground. Inductive arguments may be strong,
◊ The opposite is not true, however; it is not valid to
statements cannot both be true at the same time and in weak, or in-between, depending on the relevance and
say, “I am in India (Q); therefore, I am in New
the same manner. Thus “A is B” and “A is not B” are number of particulars that lead to the general conclusion.
Delhi (P),” since most people in India do not live in
contradictions. – Effect to cause: A particular observation leads to a
the capital city (fallacy of Q, therefore, P).
– Law of Excluded Middle (LEM): For any claim, either general cause:
that claim or its opposite must be true; “Either A or EX: Deaths by alcohol poisoning are up by over 20%, ◊ In this case, New Delhi is a “subset” within the
not-A.” If something is true, it must exclude something so alcohol consumption is probably rising. larger “set” called India.
(namely falsity).
Note: While the argument is probable, it is not neces- Modus Tollens (MT) Fallacy of Denying the
Syllogistic Logic sary; society may simply be keeping better track of Antecedent
● Deductive logic (top-down logic) alcohol poisoning deaths.
If P, then Q If P, then Q
– General to particular: A deductive argument claims – “Scientific” reasoning: Science proceeds from obser-
that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the vation to hypothesis, and then looks for proof. As such, Not Q Not P
premises are true. it is inherently inductive. For this reason, scientific Therefore, not P Therefore, not Q
EX: All cherries are fruits. A Utah Gold is a cherry, discoveries must be “reproducible” to win general
therefore a Utah Gold is a fruit. conviction. – Negating the “if” clause (“modus tollens”)
– Cause to effect: Here a general cause leads to a par- – Probable conclusions: Inductive arguments may be ◊ This law is basically just the negative version of the
ticular effect. highly probable, but they are not absolutely verifiable. proceeding one. As long as the conditional is true,
EX: Cows come in a variety of colors, but no example negating the “then” clause also negates the “if” clause
EX: Jerry is allergic to nuts. Jerry ate a chocolate bar
with nuts in it and became sick. He was allergic to the of a purple cow has ever been forthcoming. Therefore, (not Q; therefore, not P).
there are no purple cows.
nuts in the bar. EX: I am not in India (Q), and therefore I cannot be in
– Necessary conclusions: In a well-constructed deductive Note: The evidence is sufficient to show that purple New Delhi (P).
cows must be highly unusual—but it would only take
argument, the conclusion follows necessarily (inevita- – Fallacy of denying the antecedent
one example to disprove the statement.
bly) from the general. ◊ Here, too, the opposite is not true (fallacy of not P;
Note: Not all true statements lead to necessary conclu- – Advantages and disadvantages of inductive logic: therefore, not Q).
sions. ◊ Inductive logic is much more likely to produce new
◊ Alternate effect: Alcohol need not always cause ideas. EX: “I am not in New Delhi (P); therefore, I cannot be in
drunkenness; the conclusion is not necessary. ◊ Inductive arguments cannot be proved absolutely. India (Q).” This is not valid since India has many cities.
◊ Alternate causes: When drunkenness occurs, it is ● Types of syllogisms that form arguments and their Sufficient & Necessary Conditions
always caused by alcohol, by definition. There is no fallacies:
alternate cause, so the conclusion is necessary. Modus Ponens (MP) Fallacy of Affirming the Sufficient Necessary Condition
– Arguments by Cause: Whether making or assessing Consequent Condition
an argument by cause, ask yourself: P ensures or is ade- P is essential to Q (without P,
If P, then Q If P, then Q
◊ How certain is the relationship between the cause quate for Q Q can’t happen)
and the effect? P Q
Terms used: If, in case, Terms used: Only if, entails
◊ Is the relationship overly simplistic or too complex?
Therefore, Q Therefore, P given that that, implies that
◊ Are there other effects or causes?
1
Logic in Argument (continued)
– If you combine heat, oxygen, and fuel, the fuel will EX: Everyone who works hard and turns in the essay
EX: If something is EX: Only if space and time
directly observable, exist can movement take burn. will earn an A.
OR
then science is being place. ● You could prove this example insufficient by denying
– To burn fuel, you must add heat and oxygen.
practiced.
● Both statements above are true. Heat and fuel alone, the second clause (the consequent).
To refute the claim that To refute the claim that some-
however, are necessary but not sufficient, since without EX: I worked hard and turned in the essay but earned a B.
something is a suffi- thing is a necessary condition,
oxygen, they will not burn.
cient condition, give an give an example in which Q ● Likewise, if I argue: “It takes hard work, research
● Similarly, it is necessary to turn in a paper to get an A
example in which P is can be true without P. skills, and lucid writing to earn an A,” you could
on it, but it is not sufficient.
true and Q is false. prove this unnecessary by denying any part of the
Refutation of Necessary & Sufficient Conditions
● Necessary and sufficient conditionals are valid in both ● A counter-argument is all that is necessary to prove first clause (the antecedent).
directions. It does not matter whether you say: something not necessary or not sufficient. EX: “I did not work hard, but I still earned an A.”
– Willing to listen
Six Evidences of a Good Argument What an Argument Requires
– Willing to withhold judgment until arguer finishes
A good argument: ● Arguable issue – Willing to participate respectfully if required
1. Has a strong foundation in correspondence and factual support. – Central focus on an issue not yet settled. To deter- – Willing to ask questions
2. Has a high degree of coherence, or internal consistency; a logi- mine this, find out if: ● Common ground
cally contradictory system cannot be true. ◊ A consensus has already been established by – What do audience and arguer have in common?
3. Has explanatory power. secondary sources, or – What do opposing views have in common?
4. Avoids extremes; is neither too simple nor too complex. ◊ Informed experts can disagree on conclusions – How can common ground serve as the foundation
5. Is established not only by one line of evidence, or by one knock- – There is potential for at least two or more views. for opposing viewpoints?
out argument, but by the cumulative evidence of converging Potential does not exist if: ● Forum
lines from several sources of data. ◊ No reasonable person could disagree, or – Safe environment in which to argue
6. Is not complete in and of itself until it is implicitly, or explic- ◊ The writer could not argue intelligently for both – Arguer and audience feel comfortable to contribute
itly, able to refute contrary arguments. sides – Often a judge, moderator, or mediator controls or
● Arguer contributes
Types of Arguments – Takes a position on an issue meaningful to the tar- ● Audience outcomes
geted audience – Feedback from audience
Debate – States and defends claim ◊ Complete agreement—no argument
● Two sides argue an issue – States counter-claim(s) familiar to audience and ◊ Total disagreement—no common ground and no
● The best presented argument is judged the winner rebuts them argument
● Venue: Public meetings, clubs, and legislative assemblies – Summarizes conclusion and restates claim ◊ Common ground—argument possible
● Traditionally delivered orally, with notes ● Audience – Delayed feedback from audience (i.e., survey, poll, etc.)
– Open to arguer’s claim and defense – No audience participation
Trial
● Defense and prosecution present an argument to the judge/jury
Examples: Was there prison abuse in Iraq? What
● Judge/Jury decides who wins the argument with a verdict Arguable Issues
caused the shuttle accident? Should the press
● Venue: Courtrooms, hearings, and legal tribunals
● Could reasonable people come to different conclu- secretary resign?
● Traditionally delivered orally
sions? If not, the issue needs no argument. ● Issues related to historical or ongoing topics
Dialectic
● Is the issue susceptible of proof?
Examples: Were Lewis and Clark really all that suc-
● Opposing views are considered in an issue
EX: We might wonder how many women were in cessful? What should we do about deforestation?
● Two or more people argue an issue
Shakespeare’s audience, but without video cameras
● Questions are raised to test the strength of the opposing views ● Hidden issues uncovered and exposed
or time machines, the issue is not susceptible of proof.
● Attempt to establish common ground in argument Examples: Who should rescue Argentina’s children
● Are the issues compelling?
● Attempt to discover new ground by both sides of the street? Are casinos rigged for profit?
– Is the arguer enthusiastic?
● Venue: Formal or informal discussions
– Is the audience enthusiastic? ● Issues argued to conclusion, present claims untested
● Similar to debates, but without the emotional component; joint
– Is the issue timely? Examples: Who are pro-choice advocates today? Will
effort to arrive at the truth
● Issues ripped from the headlines legalizing marijuana prevent its abuse?
● Written or oral
EX: Plato’s Dialogues
Reading Argumentative Material For Complex Reading
Single Arguer 1. Read it through without complete comprehension once.
● Single arguer attempts to convince an audience Before Reading 2. Read it through again, recording complex terms/
● Claim is presented; opposing views are confronted 1. Scan the title, first paragraph, and conclusion. phrases.
● Outcome is uncertain, but an attempt is made to convince or 2. Summarize the material in one paragraph. 3. Use a dictionary to define and understand terms/phrases.
persuade 4. Read through it again and attempt to summarize the
3. What is your immediate opinion regarding the material?
● Venue: Written essays or lectures; prescriptive in nature material.
4. Write the paper’s claim and counter-claim.
One-on-One When Reading Is Complete
● Single arguer attempts to convince another person Begin Reading 1. Do you understand? If not, perhaps more background
● Arguer looks for common ground with person 1. Read through the material once. is necessary.
● There is one winner and one loser 2. Read through the material again and make marginal 2. How is the argument constructed?
● Venue: Most common in politics; was made famous by the notes. 3. Write your position on the material.
Lincoln-Douglas debates 3. Identify key words and phrases. 4. Compare your position to others̕ positions.
● At its best it is focused and formal, following pre-set rules which 4. What is the common ground? 5. Gather additional material.
may or may not be enforced by a mediator
Academic Investigation ● Keep a journal, notebook, or folder of ideas.
Writing Your Own Argument
● A complex issue is examined ● Mentally visualize major concepts.
● Search for undiscovered knowledge and truth Before You Write ● Do some directed reading and thinking.
● Venue: Chiefly universities ● Use argumentative strategies.
● Get organized.
● Typically open-ended, narrowing in to hypotheses as they un- ● Create a timeline and a schedule for writing. ● Use reading strategies.
cover evidence ● What is your argument going to be? Explore the ● Use critical thinking prompts.
● The process leading up to an argumentative essay material. ● Search a library database for relevant, peer-reviewed
Negotiation ● Analyze the rhetorical situation. articles.
● Two or more people argue to reach a consensus ● Focus and freewrite. ● Gather your own data via interviews, questionnaires,
● Venue: Business contracts, collective bargaining, political trea- ● Brainstorm, make lists, and map ideas. or polls, if relevant.
ties, legal settlements, etc. ● Talk it through. ● Make an expanded list or outline.
2
Writing Strategies Strategies When Stuck ● Talk about your ideas with someone else. 3. Put the draft aside for 24 hours for a fresh
● Lower your expectations for your first perspective.
● Write the first draft. ● Read more and take more notes.
● Get ideas on paper. ● Read your outline, rearrange parts, and draft. 4. Rewrite and revise.
● Use an outline and notes to guide you. add more information to it. Postwriting Strategies 5. Check your paper.
● Write and rewrite as you go. ● Freewrite on the issue, read some more, 1. Read your draft critically. 6. Write the final title.
● Write the draft quickly and rewrite later. and freewrite some more. 2. Have someone else read your draft. 7. Type or print the paper.
– Show practical uses or applications. ● Consider it over time – Give evidence to support your evaluation.
Critical Thinking Prompts
– Show how it can be used in a specific – What about your issue yesterday? ● Elaborate on it
● Associate it setting. – What about your issue tomorrow? – Add an explanation for better under-
– Consider other related issues. ● Divide it – Does it change? How? Why? standing.
– Associate your issue with familiar subjects. – Divide your issue into a related issue. ● Decide what it is a part of
– Give examples to provide further elab-
● Describe it – Divide your issue into parts of an issue. – Put it in a larger category.
oration.
– Use detail. ● Agree and disagree with it – Consider the insights you gain as a result.
● Project and predict
– Make the description visual. – Identify extreme pro and con positions. ● Analyze it
– Answer the question, “What would hap-
● Compare it – List other approaches and perspectives. – Break it into parts.
pen if…?”
– Compare it with things you know well. – Consider why each position is plausible. – Get insight into each of its parts.
– Compare what you once thought about ● Think about your issue in contempo- ● Evaluate it – Think about further possibilities.
the issue to what you think now. rary time – Is it good or bad? ● Ask why
– Give reasons for a change of mind. – What is its nature? – Is it valuable or not valuable? – Examine every aspect of your issue.
● Apply it – What are its special characteristics? – Is it moral or immoral? – Answer the “why” with “because…”
EX: When there is no rain the grass withers. When there
Purpose & Parts of an Argument Types of Evidence
is rain the grass grows. Therefore, rain causes the grass
Do the following steps to develop an understanding of the ● There are two types of evidence to grow.
argument as a whole. – Circumstantial evidence relies on inference to connect – Weakness: Over-simplified: rain isn’t enough to make
Survey it to a conclusion. Circumstantial evidence may be grass grow, and other things (i.e., the sun) also “cause”
strong or weak. Cumulative circumstantial evidence is
1. Read the title and focus on the information in it. growth.
much stronger than a single connection.
2. Read the introduction and look for the claim. ● Argument from statistics: Describes relationships
◊ Weak: He bought the gun that killed her, so he
3. Read the last paragraph and look for the claim. among data, people, occurrences, and events.
probably did it (but it could have been stolen).
4. Read the headings and subheadings to understand ideas. EX: Illegal drugs entering into this country cause a rise
◊ Strong: He bought the gun that killed her, he was
5. Read the first sentence of each paragraph to understand in crime. Last year illegal drug flow into the U.S. rose
seen with it the day before, and he threatened to kill
ideas. 25%. Last year the crime rate nationwide rose 28%.
her on Facebook. Here the accumulation of circum-
6. Study the visuals, such as pictures, charts, and
stantial evidence makes it strong. – Weakness: Over-simplification leading to a false infer-
graphs; read captions.
– Direct evidence is sufficient by itself to convince any- ence: many things cause crime to rise.
7. Identify the key words that represent the main
one beyond a reasonable doubt; it therefore needs no ● Argument from analogy: Perceived similarities are used
concepts.
corroboration. to infer a similarity not yet observed.
Divide the Argument into Parts EX: He leapt onto the stage and shot the candidate before – Literal analogy: A comparison of two closely related
1. Draw a line across the page each time the subject changes. hundreds of people during a televised speech. things.
2. Consider chunking—the physical division of an argu-
● Evidence vs. proof: Real world evidence, whether direct EX: This drug prevention program worked in New York,
ment into its parts.
or circumstantial, rarely approaches the certainty of clas- so it should also work in Chicago.
Ask Why the Parts Are in a Particular Order sical logic or mathematical proof; even direct evidence ◊ Weakness: Drugs may differ from city to city; in
1. Attempt to determine the logical order of the argument. is only sufficient “beyond a reasonable doubt.” other words, not all cities are alike.
2. How did the author think about and organize the parts? ● Argument from deduction: Draws a conclusion from – Historical analogy: A forecasting technique based on
3. How will I think and organize the parts of my argument? a general principle. what has happened in the past.
Analyze the Relationship among Parts EX: All men are prone to prideful boasting. Socrates is EX: Historically; 85% of consumer purchases were made
1. What is the relationship among the parts of this argument? a man. Therefore, Socrates is prone to prideful boasting. by women; therefore, our advertisements should target
2. Do all parts contribute to a central idea? – Weakness: It’s easy to attack a general principle. women.
● Argument from definition: Arguer proposes meaning
◊ Weakness: The future may not resemble the past
of term to audience for approval, and then says claim
Types of Claims (i.e., because now most women work).
should be accepted “by definition.”
– Figurative analogies compare things not obviously
Identify each argument type by identifying the questions EX: Willful taking of human life is murder. Suicide is comparable in most respects.
the argument answers. willful taking of human life. Suicide is murder. ◊ Metaphors and similes are figurative analogies.
● Claims of fact: Did it happen? Is it true? – Weakness: The audience can always reject your definition. EX: Graduates of our martial arts course wear their skills
EX: Fast food is a global phenomenon. ● Argument from cause: Places the subject in a cause-
like a suit of armor; they walk protected at all times.
● Claims of definition: What is it? How should we inter- effect relationship to show it is either the cause of an
◊ Weakness: While vivid, this simile adds nothing to
pret it? effect or the effect of a cause.
our knowledge of martial arts; it is an appeal to our
EX: We need to define what constitutes a family before EX: Children of single-parent families are prone to drug emotions only (pathos).
we talk about family values. abuse. (Arguer offers example of children who abuse ● Argument from authority: Arguer relies on a widely
drugs who are from single-parent families). Lack of a
● Claims of cause: What caused it? Or, what are the ef- accepted authority.
mother or father caused this drug abuse problem.
fects? EX: People should let the Bible be their guide.
– Weakness: It might just be a correlation—either two
EX: The United States champions human rights in symptoms of a common cause or a coincidence. – Weakness: Appeals to authority are only as strong as
foreign countries to further its own economic self- ● Argument from sign: A specific, visible sign is some- the authority cited, so those who don’t accept biblical
interests.
times used to prove a claim. authority won’t be persuaded.
● Claims of value: Is it good or bad? What criteria ● Motivational evidence appeals to an audience’s needs,
EX: That person has mud on her boots. Gardeners have
do we use to decide? wants, desires, and better judgment.
mud on their boots. That person is a gardener.
EX: Computers are a valuable addition to modern society. EX: Dieting can make you better looking. It is proven
– Weakness: There may be multiple causes for a sign (i.e.,
● Claims of policy: What should we do about it? What other things may cause muddy boots besides gardening). that in job interviews the attractive person fares best.
should be our future course of action? ● Argument from induction: Provides a number of ex- Therefore, go on a diet before your big interview arrives.
EX: The criminal should be sent to prison rather than amples and draws a claim from them in the form of a – Weakness: Argument appeals to pathos rather than
to a mental institution. conclusion. logos.
3
◊ Analysis: This argument shifts the burden of true because it is widely held to be true by some
Types of Fallacies
proof. sector of the population.
A logical or reasoning error that is not related to the form – Slippery slope: To show that a proposition is unac- EX: “This is the 21st century. No one believes that
of the argument; fallacies relate to whether propositions ceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable anymore.”
have any bearing on the case at hand. events follow from that proposition.
◊ Analysis: This is an attempt to intimidate those
Fallacies EX: “If I make an exception for you, then I have to
who think popular means true.
Formal Informal make an exception for everyone.” – Appeal to authority: Appropriate only when the
Ambiguity Relevance EX: “If you have one drink, you’ll never stop.” authority is relevant.
Causal Non-causal ◊ Analysis: This assumes that progression is in- EX: “If I played baseball, I’d wear Spotbilt shoes.”
evitable. (Spoken by a football player)
Fallacies of Ambiguity – Complex question: Two otherwise unrelated points ◊ Analysis: This is unearned authority; he may
● Equivocation: A word or phrase used two or more are conjoined and treated as one; they must be ac- have no idea what baseball players need.
different ways. cepted or rejected together. – False/Faulty analogy
EX: “If all men are created equal, why are some EX: “Do you support freedom and the right to bear EX: “Believing in miracles is like believing in San-
strong and others weak? And where does that leave arms?” ta Claus.”
women?” ◊ Analysis: This question presupposes that freedom ◊ Analysis: This is proposition assassination in-
– Analysis: Here the arguer equivocates on several and the right to bear arms are synonymous.
stead of character assassination. Santa Claus is
words. “Men” can mean people in general, or males – Appeal to force: Certain negative consequences
made up, so miracles must be made up.
only. Likewise, “created” can mean either made or will follow if the portrayed action is not followed.
– Hasty generalization: The size of the particular
born, while “strength” and “weakness” refer to a EX: “Anyone who does not agree with the new com- sample is too small to form a conclusion.
physical state of equality, overlooking the fact that pany policy will be terminated.”
EX: “All Italians are bald; at least the one I saw was.”
there are moral and legal contexts of the word.
◊ Analysis: Force replaces reason. It is now ir-
● Relationship (amphiboly): The words are clear but ◊ Analysis: This is extrapolation from inadequate
relevant whether people agree with the policy;
the sentence construction is unclear. evidence.
all that is required is silence.
EX: “Last night I shot a burglar in my pajamas.” – Appeal to pity: An agreement to a proposition – Begging the question: The conclusion is assumed
by the premise (also known as a circular argument).
– Analysis: It is unclear who is in the pajamas—“I” because of the pitiful state of unrelated things.
or the burglar. Amphiboly can be mere error or a EX: “How can they sentence this man to death? Who EX: You must save enough money to pay your bills
device to mislead readers. will take care of his wife and children?” because bills must be paid.
● Accent/Emphasis: An accent is placed on a certain ◊ Analysis: This is a lecture, not an argument.
◊ Analysis: This avoids the question with an appeal
word or phrase in a premise to distort meaning. This – Straw man: Misrepresents the opponent’s position
to pathos.
is an Aristotelian error rare in English. in order to more easily rebut it.
– Appeal to consequences: The disagreeable conse-
EX: “You have heard that it was said, “You shall love quences of holding a particular belief are high- EX: Opponent: “We should clean up the environment,
your neighbor, and hate your enemy.” If you love lighted to show this belief is false. but there’s a point of diminishing return.” Straw man
your neighbor, can you hate everyone else? version: “My opponent says the environment is not
EX: “If we ban abortion-on-demand, the result will
– Analysis: The emphasis on “neighbor” gives it a worth cleaning up.”
be back-alley abortions.”
global sense. ◊ Analysis: Avoiding the consequence does not ◊ Analysis: This takes a piece of the argument for
Fallacies of Relevance require us to embrace what precedes it. the whole.
● Non-causal fallacies of relevance: Deals with argu- – Character assassination: A person or group is – Fallacy of origins: Claims that the source of a
ments unrelated to causes. attacked rather than the proposition itself. belief warrants rejecting that belief.
– False/Faulty dilemma: A limited number of options EX: “She’s just a radical feminist.” EX: The Nazis were fascinated with Wagner, so we
are given when more are available. shouldn’t listen to him.
◊ Analysis: This attacks the fallacy by attacking
EX: “You’re either a capitalist or a communist.”
the person who holds it. Whether or not she is a ◊ Analysis: Even if the Nazis enjoyed Wagner, he
◊ Analysis: Imposes a false bifurcation; there are feminist should be irrelevant; the proposition might still be worth listening to.
gradations of both, and other choices. should be analyzed on its merits. – Category mistake: Confusing one category of
– Appeal to/Argument from ignorance: Assumes – Prejudicial appeal: A proposition is accepted based things with another; confusing the whole with the
one of the following: on loaded or emotive terms. part.
◊ Since something has not been disproved, it is true.
EX: “Right-thinking people will vote for candidate EX: “The foundations of buildings are always flat.
◊ Since something has not been proven true, it is false.
Jacobs.” Therefore the world must is flat.”
EX: No evidence can be provided that Shakespeare’s
◊ Analysis: This is an appeal to pathos; it assumes ◊ Analysis: This is an error of scale. As we measure
audience wore shoes; therefore, they must have come
we think of ourselves as “right thinking.” them, foundations must be flat. On a large scale,
to the theater barefoot.
– Appeal to popularity: A proposition is held to be however, the globe is curved.
● Does the author use proofs that establish credibility? ● Is the argument moral and ethical or immoral and
Questions for Reading/
(Describe them.) What is the effect on the audience? manipulative according to your standards and values?
Writing an Argument ● What type of language predominates: language that Why do you think so?
appeals to reason, language that appeals to emotion,
● What is the issue? (State as a question.) Argumentative Sample
or language that establishes credibility?
● What is the author’s particular perspective or “take”
● What are the warrants? Do you share them? Do they Sexual harassment has come back once more to haunt
on the issue?
need backing to make them more convincing to you? Hillary Clinton, that fervent, flawed champion of wom-
● How would you describe the rhetorical situation?
● Is it part of an ongoing conversation on this issue? ● Are rebuttal arguments used in the argument to point en. A new report that she refused to fire an adviser ac-
What has gone before? out how the opposition is wrong or in error on certain cused of sexually harassing a campaign staffer in 2008,
● Divide the material into its parts and label the subject points? What are they? Are they effective? against the recommendations of her own campaign
of each part: What are the subjects? Why are they in ● Does the author exhibit a personal style of argument? manager, recalls her own fraught history with the wom-
this order? How do they relate to each other? (Describe it.) What in the author’s background has
en who made allegations against her husband.
● What is the claim? (This should be a statement.) What possibly contributed to this style?
type of claim is it? ● Are there any fallacies in the argument? Does the This episode is a poignant reminder that placing wom-
● What are the sub-claims? What types of claims are author complain of any fallacious thinking on the part en in positions of leadership does not ensure they will
they? of the opposition? (Describe it.) always act to protect other women.
● Is the argumentative intention clear, admitted, and ● In the final evaluation, should the claim be qualified ● Claim: Hillary Clinton is female, so women will be
straightforward, or is it concealed and presented un- to make it more convincing to you or to the target
better off under her administration. Category mistake:
der the guise of objective reporting? audience? Is it acceptable as it is?
Confuses natural gender with gender politics.
● Does the author use logical proofs? (Describe them.) ● Are you convinced? Do you think others will be
What is the effect on the audience? convinced? What do you perceive as the possible ● Logic: Affirming the if clause (modus ponens).
● Does the author use emotional proofs? (Describe outcomes of this argument for yourself or for the ● Motivational evidence: Claim appeals to audience's
them.) What is the effect on the audience? target audience? needs, wants, and desires that women will be better off.
4
WRITING THE ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY
Will it touch their lives or remain theoretical
Understanding the Audience Argument Theory
for them?
● Identify your audience: Who are they? What ● Are there any obstacles that will prevent your Employ the use of rhetorical situation and proof system.
do you have in common with them? audience from accepting your claim as soon as Analyze the Rhetorical Situation
● What are some of the demographics of the you state it? ● What is the real-life situation that makes me and others perceive
group? Consider size, age, gender, nationality, ● At what point is your audience in the ongoing this issue as controversial?
education, professional status, etc. conversation about the issue? Will they require ● Who is the audience who thinks this is a problem? How do they
view it?
● What are some of their organizational affiliations background and definitions? Are they knowl-
● What are the constraints that influence the audience’s perceptions
(e.g., political, religious, social, economic)? edgeable enough to contemplate policy change?
of this issue?
● What are their interests (e.g., outside interests, ● What is the attitude of your audience toward you? ● What is motivating me, the author, to write about the issue; what
reading materials)? ● What beliefs and values do you and your audi- makes me qualified?
● What is their present position on your issue? ence share? ● What will be the purpose and strategies of the text I produce?
What audience outcomes can you anticipate? ● What motivates your audience? What are their Plan Your Proofs
● Will they interpret the issue the same way you goals and aims? ● Use of logical proofs
have? ● What argument style will work best with your ● Use of proofs that effect credibility
● How significant is your issue to the audience? audience? ● Use of emotional proofs
Research Sources Not Peer Reviewed Invention Worksheet ● Write your insights.
● Mentally visualize your claim.
● Most secondary sources are not peer-
Now that the Internet is awash with false reviewed. The following sources do Write your claim; begin to develop it by ● Make a preliminary outline.
information, arguments stand or fall on not count as peer reviewed: using some of the following invention ● Think through the rhetorical situation.
the quality of their research. No one – Dictionaries strategies; if you cannot generate informa- ● Decide on some proofs that are rele-
takes a carelessly researched argument – Encyclopedias tion and ideas, do some background read- vant to your argument.
seriously. – Searches ing and try again. ● Apply critical thinking prompts (see
Primary Sources – The bible, Koran, Talmud, etc. ● Freewrite for five minutes. Critical Thinking Prompts, p. 3).
● Primary sources present direct evi- – Textbooks ● Brainstorm. ● Establish cause.
dence and first-hand accounts such as: – Newspapers ● Make a list. ● Describe where you need to add
– Historical or legal documents – Popular magazines ● Explain your claim to someone. evidence.
– Creative writing – Book reviews
– Interviews When Do You Need Peer-Reviewed Divide Your Argument into “For” & “Against”
– Eye-witness accounts Sources?
– Statistical records Develop the argument to be used in the body of text.
Peer-reviewed sources are written for
– Experimental research readers with more than common knowl- Topic: Examinations Should Be Abolished
Secondary Sources edge of a subject. If your argument is ● For: They test a limited range of skills.
● Secondary sources analyze, interpret, directed at informed readers—readers Against: Passing shows effective communication/problem solving.
evaluate, and comment on primary who already know the primary sources— ● For: Exams favor people who have good memory and techniques.
sources such as: than you must use peer-reviewed sourc- Against: Exams have improved in the past 20 years. They test a greater range of skills.
– Scholarly articles es. Most upper level classes require peer- ● For: They depress students and deaden initiative.
– Scholarly books reviewed sources. Against: The mental effort to prepare is valuable.
– Textbooks When Is the Standard of Truth ● For: They are set as if everyone has reached the same level at the same time.
– Reviews Against: Exams are rare at points of inequality in development.
Sufficient?
– Dictionaries ● For: They encourage competition and favor gifted students.
– Encyclopedias ● The standard of truth is sufficient Against: The solution is to find better ways to organize classes.
when: ● For: Different examiners grade student papers differently.
Peer Review vs. Journalism – You are establishing general knowl- Against: Modern examination boards ensure marking is done fairly.
● Newspaper accounts and popular edge for uninformed readers
magazines may be either secondary or – You are establishing background ● Offer readers a guide for what is to come.
Summary of the
primary sources depending on their knowledge before going on to new Body
intent, but they are never peer-re- material Argumentative Essay
● Construct arguments.
viewed. – The subject of your argument is
● Support arguments with evidence.
● Journalism: Adheres to a standard of widely accessible (and hence, eas- Introduction
● Confront counter-arguments.
truth and relevance when gathering ily checked). For instance: ● Identify and state key ideas or concepts.
● Write with a clear sense of audience.
and assessing news. ◊ Popular music ● Provide a background to the argument
● Peer-Review: Truth is insufficient; ◊ Restaurants and thesis. Conclusion
peer-reviewed articles are refereed by ◊ Television, movies, etc. ● State thesis clearly and unequivocally. ● Retrace steps.
experts in the field, and only those – You are writing as an equal, rather ● Define key terms; describe the approach ● Restate the thesis.
deemed to have contributed to the than from a position of authority for your paper. ● Make a powerful closing.
body of knowledge are accepted for
Bibliographies & Works Cited Pages
publication. Model Argumentative Essay Outline
Bibliographies and works cited pages are
Peer-Reviewed Sources required whenever the author cites sourc-
Topic: Reality TV and Everyday Life
● Peer-reviewed sources are a defining es not in common knowledge—that is,
element of all scholarly arguments. To not accessible by everyone in a given Part I (introduction): As most people could tell you, there is very little reality in
determine if an article is peer-re- community. reality television, despite numerous claims to the contrary—claims constantly rein-
viewed: ● Bibliography: A list of all sources forced by so-called “reality” channels, featuring shows with titles such as “Real
– Use a library database. Some data- consulted People” and “Real World.” Some of the unreality is inherent in the genre; like most
bases allow you to limit your search ● Annotated bibliography: A bibliogra- televised entertainment, the so-called reality shows feature set story lines, artificial
to peer-reviewed sources only. phy where each item is followed by a situations, and (frequently) re-staged scenes or juggled camera-shots. Charges of
– Limit yourself to articles that are descriptive or evaluative paragraph as- misleading editing and “coached” participants have also been rife, and occasionally,
included in an academic journal. sessing the quality or relevance of the these charges have clearly been justified. In short, it is easy to criticize the realism
– Limit yourself to articles with named material. This is called the annotation of this genre’s vaunted reality, even while we enjoy the entertainment.
authors. ● Works cited page: A list of all sourc- When you come down to it though, couldn’t much the same thing be said about real
– Check to see if the journal is spon- es actually cited by name or author. life? Take the charges of misleading editing and “coaching”; how many of us have
sored by a professional society or Works cited pages may or may not be never replayed a conflict in our mind and “edited” what we remember? Our own good
academic department. annotated lines get better, and the points of our opponent de-emphasized or ridiculed. Moments
5
Model Argumentative Essay Outline (continued)
of dramatic conflict are heightened, while is a central element of what we mean – Point 2: There is nothing wrong with is almost certainly guilty of everything
wordiness or stuttering drop out gracefully. by the phrase “real life.” any of these activities; in fact, they are we say it is, but it is our expectations that
How many of us have never honed an en- – Counter-claim #2: Our criticisms of an essential part of what distinguishes are really at fault. We think of life as
tertaining story through many tellings? If reality television have nothing to do us from more instinctual animals— chaotic and unplanned—and if it is, real-
reality television is not particularly “real,” with the nature of real life; we simply something to be applauded, not con-
ity television is manifestly unreal. In fact
are our own lives that different? object to fraudulent claims. demned.
though, our minds are constantly at work,
● Part II (claim and counter-claims): ● Part III (the case): To support the claim, – Point 3: To the degree that something
ordering and selecting from the del-
– Claim: Real life is as planned, revised, I plan to show that it is not possible for is scripted, coached, or subsequently
uge of events that make up everyday
and scripted as any reality television rational thinking creatures to avoid script- revised, even in memory, we think of
life. In short, what we really object
show—we just don’t like to think of it ing, revising, and coaching—in short, all it as less real. Unplanned events tend
that way. the things that we claim are “unreal” in to feel “more real” to us. In fact, they to in reality television is not its unreality,
– Counter-claim #1: Real life is charac- reality television. are not more real—they are only more but it’s honesty. What we really want is
terized by spontaneity; it is unplanned, – Point 1: There is nothing “unreal” about chaotic. to rewrite reality as we know it—while
and to some extent, unpredictable. This these aspects of reality television. ● Part IV (summary): Reality television pretending otherwise.
Sample Argumentative Paper
Why Educate the Children of Illegal Immigrants?
Opening sentences establish credibility
Immigration laws have been a subject of debate throughout American history, especially in states such as
by showing the writer is informed California and Texas, where immigrant populations are high. Recently, some citizens have been questioning whether we
Thesis, at end of introductory paragraph, should continue to educate the children of illegal immigrants. While this issue is steeped in emotional controversy, we must not
allow divisive “us against them” rhetoric to cloud our thinking. Yes, educating undocumented immigrants costs us. But not
states the main point
educating them would cost us much more.
Those who propose barring the children of illegal immigrants from our schools have crowded their school systems.
Writer addresses the concerns of those
They worry about the crowding itself, given the loss of quality education that comes with large class sizes. They worry that
who hold opposing views
school resources will be deflected from their children because of the linguistic and social problems that many of the
Writer counters opposing arguments newcomers face. And finally, they worry that even more illegal immigrants will cross our borders because of the lure of free
education.
This last worry is probably unfounded. It is unlikely parents are crossing the borders solely to educate their
children. More likely, they are in desperate need of work, economic opportunity, and possibly political asylum. Charles
Quotation is cited using MLA Wheeler of the National Immigration Law Center asserts, “There is no evidence that access acts as a magnet to foreigners or that
further restrictions would discourage illegal immigrants” (qtd. in “Exploiting”).
The other concerns are more legitimate, but they can be addressed by less drastic measures than barring children
from schools. Currently the responsibility of educating about 75% of undocumented children is borne by just a few states -
Statistic is cited using MLA California, New York, Texas, and Florida (Edmondson 1). One way to help these and other states is to have the federal
government pick up the cost of educating undocumented children, with enough funds to alleviate the overcrowded classrooms
Reasonable tone keeps argument from that cause parents such concern. Such cost shifting could have a significant benefit, for if the federal government had to pay, it
sounding biased might work harder to stem the tide of illegal immigrants.
So far, attempts to bar undocumented children from public schools have failed. In the 1982 case of Plyler v. Doe,
the Supreme Court ruled on the issue. In a 5-4 decision, it overturned a Texas law that allowed schools to deny education to
illegal immigrants. Martha McCarthy reports that Texas had justified its law as a means of “preserving financial resources,
Quotation is cited using MLA protecting the state from an influx of illegal immigrants, and maintaining high quality education for resident children” (128). The
Court considered these issues but concluded that in the long run the costs of educating immigrant children would pale in
Writer uses evidence to support his
comparison to the costs - both to the children and to society - of not educating them.
thesis
It isn’t hard to figure out what the costs of not educating these children would be. The costs to innocent children
Transitional topic sentence leads are obvious: loss of the opportunity to learn English, to understand American culture and history, to socialize with other
readers to next part of paper children in a structured environment, and to grow up to be successful, responsible adults.
The costs to society as a whole are fairly obvious as well. That is why we work so hard to promote literacy and
Writer builds common ground with
prevent students from dropping out of school. An uneducated populace is dangerous to the fabric of society, contributing to
readers social problems such as vandalism and crime, an underground economy, gang warfare, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse,
and infectious and transmissible diseases. The health issue alone makes it worth our while to educate the children of
undocumented immigrants, for when children are in school, we can make sure they are inoculated properly, and we can teach
them the facts about health and disease.
Do we really want thousands of uneducated children growing up on the streets, where we have little control over
Conclusion restates benefits of
them? Surely not. The lure of the streets is powerful enough already. Only by inviting all children into safe and nurturing and
educating children of illegal immigrants
intellectually engaging schools can we combat the power. Our efforts will be well worth the cost.
Works Cited
Works cited page is formatted according
Edmondson, Brad. “Life without Illegal Immigrants.” American Demographics May 1996: 1.
to MLA style
“Exploiting Fears.” Admissions Decisions: Should Immigration Be Restricted? 7 Oct. 1996. Public Agenda. 10 Feb. 2000 http://www.vote-smart.
org/issues/Immigration/chap2/imm2itx.html
McCarthy, Martha M. “Immigrants in Public Schools: Legal Issues.” Educational Horizons 71(1993): 128–30.
The essay above is written by Andrew Knutson and excerpted from Diana Hacker’s, A Writer’s Reference, 5th edition, 2003. Used by permission
of Bedford/St. Martin’s, New York.
U.S. $6.95
Authors: Kathryn Jacobs, PhD
NOTE TO STUDENT: This guide is intended for informational purposes only. Due
to its condensed format, this guide cannot cover every aspect of the subject; rather,
it is intended for use in conjunction with course work and assigned texts. BarCharts
Publishing, Inc., its writers, editors, and design staff are not responsible or liable for
the use or misuse of the information contained in this guide.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in
any form, or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, record-
ing, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from
the publisher. Made in the USA ©2018 BarCharts Publishing, Inc. 0518
6